Kia ora, thanks for your interest in how we calculate an experience's ranking score. It's at the core of Rankers so I'm pleased you're curious.
The ranking score percentage is used to compare and sort experiences in ranking tables. It is not necessarily a direct measurement of the quality of a particular experience as rated by its customers. I've found it a useful tool to allow me to find the best experiences with confidence. But I've also found it important to read the customer reviews before making any final judgements!
We calculate an experience's ranking score using a multi-factor data model instead of a raw data average (mean). This model takes into account several important questions. For instance - is there a trusted body of reviews? What is the age of a review and is the review from a credible source?
Below you'll find details around some of the important factors that went into calculating the ranking score for Wellington Botanic Gardens.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at info@rankers.co.nz. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
Wellington Botanic Gardens
Valid Reviews
70 Valid Reviews
The Wellington Botanic Gardens experience has a total of 70 valid reviews. There are no invalid reviews that are excluded from the calculation. Reviews can be excluded only when a reviewer is not verified or after an investigation by our team determines the reviewer is not genuine.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 70 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 16 |
|
23% |
| 9/10 | 23 |
|
33% |
| 8/10 | 20 |
|
29% |
| 7/10 | 10 |
|
14% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
86.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wellington Botanic Gardens valid reviews is 86.00% and is based on 70 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
Face-to-Face Reviews
61 Face-to-Face Reviews
The Rankers team meets with travellers while they’re in New Zealand and conducts face-to-face surveys. These reviews, in our opinion, are the most trusted in the industry and represent a critical control sample. To our knowledge, we are the only travel review website in the world that has gone to this extent.
More about face-to-face reviews
Within the 70 valid reviews, the experience has 61 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 61 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 13 |
|
21% |
| 9/10 | 21 |
|
34% |
| 8/10 | 18 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
85.90% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wellington Botanic Gardens face-to-face reviews is 85.90% and is based on 61 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
87.06%
Rankers calculates a weighted mean as a base average on which we can improve. Individual review's ratings are given a weight based on several factors. The weight of a review determines the overall impact it'll have on the final weighted average.
Recent reviews have more weight as they are more relevant and reflect the experience as it currently operates. Over time reviews become less relevant and loose their impact on the ranking score.
Low rating reviews carry slightly less weight. This dampens the effect of very low ratings for every experience across the board. This is especially important when the experience has few reviews overall and a single negative rating can grossly mischaracterise an experience. Consistent poor reviews will still result in the experience receiving a comparitively low ranking score.
Credible sources provide reviews that can be trusted. If we have verified a reviewer is genuine via a face-to-face meeting then the review carries additional weight.
| Reviewer | Rating | Age | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Fricker | 10/10 | 2243 days | 100% |
| Helna Saumanova | 10/10 | 2871 days | 71% |
| Richard | 8/10 | 2919 days | 67% |
| Sabrina and Hannes | 9/10 | 2938 days | 67% |
| Selma Franke | 9/10 | 2942 days | 67% |
| Su Jung Han | 10/10 | 3162 days | 57% |
| Fanny | 9/10 | 3163 days | 56% |
| Hector Sharp | 7/10 | 3163 days | 53% |
| Andre | 10/10 | 3179 days | 56% |
| Sybille | 10/10 | 3179 days | 56% |
| Marine | 8/10 | 3180 days | 55% |
| Paul Gaylon | 10/10 | 3183 days | 56% |
| Eberhard | 8/10 | 3184 days | 55% |
| Adam Pulkrabek | 8/10 | 3191 days | 54% |
| Olga Barathova | 9/10 | 3191 days | 55% |
| Melissa Fuster | 7/10 | 3228 days | 50% |
| renee verwey | 9/10 | 3235 days | 53% |
| Lea | 8/10 | 3275 days | 51% |
| Bob Fontaine | 7/10 | 3361 days | 44% |
| Melvin Spear | 9/10 | 3566 days | 37% |
| Manuela Opprecht | 10/10 | 3592 days | 37% |
| Sam Bruylant | 9/10 | 3903 days | 22% |
| Vera Kreipe | 8/10 | 3923 days | 21% |
| Jennifer Garner | 10/10 | 3931 days | 21% |
| Dana | 10/10 | 3936 days | 20% |
| Frederic Gazzarin | 9/10 | 3942 days | 20% |
| Patricia Gazzarin | 10/10 | 3942 days | 20% |
| Ruth Watkin | 9/10 | 3942 days | 20% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 3944 days | 20% |
| Julia Bonisch | 7/10 | 3961 days | 18% |
| Verena | 9/10 | 4274 days | 5% |
| Hans | 9/10 | 4363 days | 0% |
| Anne and John | 9/10 | 4372 days | 0% |
| Jen Sweeting | 8/10 | 4635 days | 23% |
| Duncan Mallison | 7/10 | 4654 days | 22% |
| Richard Sutherland | 5/10 | 4657 days | 18% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 4657 days | 23% |
| R E Webb | 9/10 | 4660 days | 23% |
| Diana Allan | 9/10 | 4664 days | 23% |
| Lepied | 8/10 | 4664 days | 23% |
| Graham Swinyard | 7/10 | 4671 days | 22% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 4708 days | 23% |
| scampr | 8/10 | 4708 days | 23% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 4739 days | 22% |
| Steve Eley | 9/10 | 4748 days | 23% |
| Willem & Lilian | 8/10 | 4748 days | 23% |
| Curry | 10/10 | 4751 days | 24% |
| Herman Plasman | 8/10 | 4754 days | 23% |
| R & M Willows | 10/10 | 4756 days | 24% |
| Elke & Charlotte | 7/10 | 4759 days | 22% |
| Malcolm Jones | 8/10 | 5007 days | 23% |
| Kimberly St Louis | 10/10 | 5028 days | 24% |
| Claire Hoyland | 8/10 | 5029 days | 23% |
| Cara Dungay | 7/10 | 5030 days | 22% |
| John Allen | 9/10 | 5037 days | 23% |
| Tanner | 10/10 | 5037 days | 24% |
| John Simpson | 8/10 | 5039 days | 23% |
| Nicole | 10/10 | 5134 days | 24% |
| Haupt | 9/10 | 5369 days | 23% |
| Herrmann | 9/10 | 5382 days | 23% |
| Susan & Richard | 10/10 | 5382 days | 24% |
| Henrik Plichta | 8/10 | 5388 days | 23% |
| Jess Laver | 9/10 | 5392 days | 23% |
| Robb Howland | 9/10 | 5403 days | 23% |
| Bram-Jan M | 8/10 | 5406 days | 23% |
| Lamb | 9/10 | 5406 days | 23% |
| Nigel Armstrong | 9/10 | 5418 days | 23% |
| Ulyate | 7/10 | 5480 days | 22% |
| Kaye | 8/10 | 5713 days | 23% |
| Christian Troendle | 9/10 | 5719 days | 23% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Wellington Botanic Gardens does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
1.45% Adjustment
Every experience's review score is adjusted to balance out the disproportional number of negative reviews that are contributed.
You won't be surprised to learn that disgruntled folk are more likely to leave a review than happy ones. They are motivated to share their experience and warn others. We consider this a good thing and it's why reading the reviews is important. However we've learned it can misrepresent the experience in a more overall sense.
We apply a balancing adjustment to counteract this effect and ensure the ranking score is a more fair representation of the experience. This adjustment is applied equally to all experiences.
Final Ranking Score
89%
The final ranking score once any adjustments, ratings, and rounding has been applied. This value is recalculated each day and a short rolling average is applied. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.